Folkestone Chronicle
14-7-1900
Saturday, July 7th: Before Alderman J. Banks.
George Humphreys, a rough looking customer, was charged with
being drunk, disorderly, and breaking a pane of glass, value 10s., at the
Marquis Of Lorne.
Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs on the first count, and 10s.
damage and 4s. 6d. costs on the second, or 14 days` hard labour on each charge.
Folkestone Express
15-3-1902
Friday, March 7th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G.
Herbert Esqs., and Colonel Hamilton.
Mr. Richard Heritage was granted a transfer of licence of
the Marquis Of Lorne public house.
Folkestone Chronicle
7-3-1903
Adjourned Licensing Sessions.
On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town
hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade”
sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the
anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court
presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick,
Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col.
Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal
luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed
respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants
in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury,
instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague
Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The
Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These
gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the
principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the
town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.
The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full
licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment,
enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was
instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The
Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville,
Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope,
Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting;
and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses,
however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria,
the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17
houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the
Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then
ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel,
as to her husband`s conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And
Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which
convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various
landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their
licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the
Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural
alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition
that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14
days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply
to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.
Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the
Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population,
and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904
Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench
invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving
at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter
into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and
equitable basis. (Hear, hear)
Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw
their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his
learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation
in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before
taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood
happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man`s living and
to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.
The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel`s
observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.
The Marquis Of Lorne
The tenant of the Marquis Of Lorne, Mr. Wm. Heritage, was
somewhat surprised when his application for a renewal was refused.
The evidence was very short. Under previous tenants, it was
said, the house had not been everything that could be desired, although, in
answer to Mr. Thorn Drury, the police admitted that there was no complaint
against the present tenant, who had been in possession only twelve months. The
chief grounds of opposition were in respect to certain structural alterations,
which it was thought could not be carried out in a practical and satisfactory
form.
Mr. Drury asked the Bench, if only for this year, to
consider his tenant, whose living depended on his twelve months` investment.
Although, no doubt, the brewers would meet Mr. Heritage, yet he would point out
that if the licence were taken away, it would not be any adequate compensation
to his client, who, he believed, had worked up a very good business by dint of
hard work during the past twelve months. As a further inducement, the brewers
would undertake to carry out any alterations suggested by the Bench.
The Bench retired, and, after three minutes, returned into
Court with the announcement that they were unanimous in their decision to
refuse the renewal of the licence. As the tenant had only been in the house twelve
months, the Bench thought that in all probability the brewers would compensate
him.
Folkestone Express
7-3-1903
Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col.
Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey
Esqs.
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices
ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the
Providence, the Marquis Of Lorne, the Victoria, the Tramway, the Hope, the
Star, the Bricklayers Arms, and the Blue Anchor.
Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases
plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the Victoria,
the Hope, and the Blue Anchor were afterwards, by direction of the Bench,
withdrawn.
The flowing counsel were engaged:- Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr.
Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, representing the Folkestone
Licensed Victuallers` Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew,
instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the Blue
Anchor, which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing
the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for
the two new licences.
The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would,
by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they
proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief
Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had
inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief
Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the
Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor. The other objections would be
proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the
licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been
convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain
structural alterations were ordered to be made at the Packet Boat, the Brewery
Tap, the Castle Inn, the Lifeboat, and the Prince Of Wales.
The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number
of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the
borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all
proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the
Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction
shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to
agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of
licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action
to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the
Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable
spirit decide what reduction should then be made.
Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs.
Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course
they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it
would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over
for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing
Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered,
was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair,
for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.
The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear
all the evidence.
The Marquis Of Lorne
This was the only case in which the licence was refused.
Mr. Drury said in that case the substantial objection was
the same. There was no complaint as to the conduct.
The Superintendent said there was no spirit licence,
although a certificate had been granted.
Mr. Henry Robert Walton, excise officer, was called to prove
this.
Mr. Drury said they were prepared to give exactly the same
undertaking with regard to the common lodging house business. By good
management the tenant had increased the trade, and he was now prepared to take
out the spirit licence. He would also undertake to close up a side entrance.
Plans were put in, showing that there was an entrance from a
yard, to which another house had a right of access, and the Superintendent said
he considered the opening of that other cottage into the yard highly
objectionable.
Mr. Drury said he would be glad if the Bench would be good
enough to give them an opportunity of seeing what they could do in the matter.
The Chairman said the house was structurally unfitted. It
was dilapidated, and he did not see how it could be got over.
After retiring, the Bench decided not to renew the licence.
Mr. Drury said it would be a great hardship to the tenant,
who paid a valuation, and had expended £52 on the house.
Mr. Ward: How long has he been in there?
The applicant, Mr. Heritage, said 12 months on the 6th
March.
Mr. Wightwick said the Bench unanimously refused the
licence. With regard to compensation, if he had only been in 12 months,
probably the brewers would compensate him.
Folkestone Herald
7-3-1903
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of
Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition
by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was
evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o`clock in
the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously
represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious
bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn,
Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business
the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the
doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The
Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G.
Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr.
C.J. Pursey.
Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced
that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23
full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to
give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine
houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage);
Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick
Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms
(Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former
sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered
the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result
that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection
served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to
persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne,
Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15
full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and
deal with them next year according to the circumstances.
The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of
licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of
Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood
of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed,
between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain
information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction
should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of
licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary
surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of
licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing
Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners,
the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers
decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.
At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll,
solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the
circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be
postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.
The Chairman: We want to hear the cases first.
Mr. Glyn: I think it would be fairer to the “trade” to
postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any
structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the
tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.
The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.
The Marquis Of Lorne, landlord Wm. R. Heritage, to which
objection had been made to the renewal of the licence, was next dealt with.
Mr. Thorn Drury said the objection to this house was
substantially the same as in the other cases.
Evidence was given by Inspector Swift.
Mr. Thorn Drury intimated that, with regard to its being a
common lodging house, they were prepared to give exactly the same undertaking.
They would also be prepared to close up the side entrance. He asked the
Justices to give them an opportunity of seeing if something could not be done
in order to save the man. He had only been in the house twelve months.
The Justices consulted in private, and on returning in about
five minutes, the Chairman said: The Bench unanimously refuse this licence.
With regard to compensation, I believe the brewers will compensate you as you
have only been there twelve months.
Southeastern Gazette
10-3-1903
Local News
At the Adjourned Licensing Sessions on Wednesday, the
renewal of the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne was refused.
Folkestone Express
14-3-1903
Local News
We hear that the refusal of the Licensing Justices to renew
the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne public house will be appealed against.
Folkestone Chronicle
11-4-1903
East Kent Quarter Sessions
Tuesday, April 7th: Before Sir W.L. Selfe.
The Marquis Of Lorne, Folkestone
In this case Mr. G.T. Drury appeared for the appellant and
Mr. Coward and Mr. Hohler for the respondents.
In opening the case, Mr. Hohler said the justices, after
inspecting the premises, directed the Chief Constable to give notice of
opposition. Their objections were (1) That the licensed premises were not
required for public accommodation; (2) that the premises were unfit to be
licensed; (3) that the premises were not suitable for night accommodation; (4)
that no excise licence for the premises had been taken out. There was a public
bar facing Radnor Street, a small store, a lumber room behind, and a small dark
living room for the licensee adnd his family. The Marquis Of Lorne was not
adapted for a night lodging house. It had only five bedrooms, and they were
made to accommodate 16 persons, comprising out-porters and men employed in the
fishing industry. There were in the neighbourhood 88 full, 11 beer on, 6 beer
off, and other licensed premises to the number of 140. This number, he
maintained, was out of all proportion to the needs of the place.
Harry Reeve, Chief Constable, and Alfred Wm. Burniston gave
evidence.
Wm. Heritage, the tenant, said his father had occupied the
premises before him. Since taking over the business (18 months ago), the trade
had increased. No complaints had previously been made by the police with regard
to the conduct or management of the premises.
Mr. Drury, for the appellant, asked what was the position of
his client? He had gone into a house which his father had occupied for some
years. He had invested all the money he had, and no-one had suggested how he
was to recover the £90 which he had expended on the undertaking. If it could be
said that the appellant had done something that he ought not to have done, then
he would not have had so much to say. There were several similar houses in the
vicinity, but this, it appeared, was the only one the police objected to. The
police seized upon this unfortunate man`s house purely and simply because in
the existence of a certain right of way to cottages they saw a reason which
would in their opinion justify their action.
Mr. Coward observed that so far as he knew the Justices were
quite within their rights when they refused to grant the renewal of the
appellant`s licence. He ventured to think there was nothing more objectionable
than the construction of the Marquis Of Lorne. There were two entrances to this
house in Radnor Street, a passage communicating with some cottages, one of
which was a lodging house. In this way people had easy access to the licensed
premises in question, and the Justices in his opinion exercised very wise
discretion.
The Bench retired, and after a short deliberation, the
Chairman announced that the decision of the Justices would be upheld. The
appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Southeastern Gazette
14-4-1903
East Kent Quarter Sessions
In the case of the Marquis Of Lorne, Folkestone, which was
an appeal against the refusal by the Justices of Folkestone to renew the
licence of the house, Mr. G.T. Drury appeared for the appellant (Heritage), and
Mr. Coward K.C. and Mr. Hohler for the respondents.
The Chairman announced that the decision of the Justices
would be upheld. Their appeal was, therefore, dismissed, with costs.
Folkestone Express
18-4-1903
East Kent Quarter Sessions
At the Kent Quarter Sessions, amongst the appeals was that
against the refusal to renew the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne, Radnor
Street, Folkestone, the property of Messrs. Ash and Co.
Mr. G.T. Drury appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Lewis
Coward K.C., and Mr. Hohler for the Justices.
Mr. Lewis Coward said the licence was refused on four
grounds, namely that the licence was not required, that the premises were
structurally unfit, that the premises were used as a common lodging house, and
also that no spirit licence had been taken out for four or five years. There
were 63 houses in Radnor Street, and eight of them were fully licensed houses.
In Folkestone there were 88 fully licensed houses, 11 beer on licences, six
beer off licences, four wine off licences, three wine on licences, and 28
spirit off licences granted to grocers and others, making a total of 140
licences. Within 130 paces of the house there were 23 fully licensed houses.
Superintendent Reeve, Sergeant Swift, and Detective Sergeant
Burniston gave evidence on behalf of the justices` decision, after which
William Richard Heritage, the tenant, gave evidence, and said that he had been
tenant for over twelve months. He was doing two and a half barrels a week. He
paid £47 to go in; there was no furniture except a few bedsteads. He had spent
£52 since on fittings. He was prepared to arrange that each lodger should have
a separate room. He had a profit of 12s. to 13s. per barrel, and his rent £15
and rates, etc.
Mr. Bromley produced plans of the premises and the proposed
alterations in the yard.
Mr. Drury, in speaking on behalf of the appellants, said the
tenant had had no complaint made against him, and had invested his money in the
house about twelve months ago, and could not recover any of it. Out of all the
houses objected to only this one had its licence refused. The fact of a right
of way across the back premises to two cottages was the chief ground of
complaint. They ought to be allowed a year in which negotiations might be made
with the owners of the cottages for alterations to be made. The spirit licence
had not been taken out but the tenant was willing to take one out, and no case
had been made that any other treatment should be meted out to this tenant than
to the others.
Mr. Coward observed that so far as he knew the justices were
quite within their rights when they refused to grant the renewal of the
applicant`s house. He ventured to think there was nothing more objectionable
than the construction of the Marquis Of Lorne. There were two entrances to this
house in Radnor Street, and a passage communicating with some cottages, one of
which was a lodging house. In this way people had easy access to the licensed
premises in question, and the Justices in his opinion exercised very wise
discretion in refusing a renewal of the licence.
The Bench retired, and after a short deliberation the
Chairman announced that the decision of the Justices would be upheld. The
appeal was, therefore, dismissed, with costs.
Folkestone Herald
18-4-1903
Local News
At the East Kent Quarter Sessions, held recently, an appeal
against the refusal of the Folkestone Licensing Bench to renew the licence of
the Marquis Of Lorne, Radnor Street, Folkestone, the property of Messrs. Ash
and Company, was dismissed with costs.
Folkestone Chronicle
11-7-1903
Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick,
Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.
Following, in most cases, orders for temporary authority,
full transfer of licences in relation to the following house was granted:- The
Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, from Mr. John Miles to Mr. William Heritage, who
formerly held the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne, which was closed at the last
Sessions.
No comments:
Post a Comment